Conquest of breed: book review

Though almost universally associated with authoritarianism and totalitarianism, many are unaware that communism has libertarian and anarchist variants. However, those who are aware of these variants tend to right of followers of them as rowdy and rambunctious teenagers, who only claim to follow their ideologies because it gives them a justification to go against authority and don’t really take their time to actually study and learn about the roots of the ideals they claim to adhere to. This is simply untrue since the majority of people on the far-left (at least in North America) tend to be on the libertarian left quadrant of the political spectrum instead of the authoritarian quadrant. Even if not all of them are full-blown anarchists. However, the ideas of anarcho-communist thinkers do tend to influence many non-anarchists. One such thinker is Peter Kropotkin, and one of his most influential works is the Conquest of Bread. A book so influential that the name of the leftist YouTube community takes inspiration from it.

The book is essentially a detailed set of arguments for an anarcho-communist society and is broken down into different chapters, each being about a different topic relating to anarcho-communist. Its equal parts critique the current mode of production while advocating for a new one. One thing to keep in mind while reading is it was written during the late 1800s, so some of the things discussed in it are quite relevant. Such as its emphasis on agriculture, and even then, there are some points it has on the matter which can still be applied today. With that said, many other things discussed in the book are just as and in some cases more relevant now than during the time it was written, for there are sections dedicated to things like gender equality and even automation. It truly was ahead of its time in some of its content.

The book has this sense of morbid optimism. Since it is just as much about the failures of modern society as it is about the success reached after the establishment of a new one and even in its criticism of the current order of things, the book also makes sure to highlight its successes. In general, it talks about the achievements of humankind and how those achievements are only going to increase as time passes. It is very internationalistic, always speaking about humankind in general. Though it refers to individuals and movements in select countries, it always refers to them as examples and never prioritizes and selects one country over all others. However, that is to be expected from an anarcho-communist book.

There’s also a scientific element to the book. Since it does critique past socialist ideologies and movements, it also credits them for being the foundation of the ideals that it espouses and treats those beliefs as the culmination of decades of political developments. It also sites many institutions in modern society as evidence that it can be changed. It essentially treats socialism like science that was developed after many years instead of an abstract idea.

Aside from many arguments against capitalism, the book is also greatly critical of the state. Speaking of it as a repressive force that holds down the masses by overly taxing the laborers, resulting in them getting even less of the produce of their work, along with and propping up the class system that holds the majority of society down. The book argues that society could be managed just as well, if not better, without it. How? By having it be organized into multiple different communes that are democratically run and locally organized. As in, they are organized based on respective locations and settings, whose members are directly impacted by how those locations and settings are governed. So the inhabitants of a neighborhood are members of a housing commune, and the workers at a factory are part of an industrial commune.

Though I did find many of the book's arguments compelling, it ultimately didn’t convince me to become an anarchist and I to this day remain a Leninist of sorts. However, the book did embolden me as a socialist and I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who falls in the authoritarian quadrant of the political spectrum. Along with anyone who’s curious about the nature of libertarian leftism.

Overall the Conquest of Bread is a good piece of political theory and deserves its position as one. However, I wouldn’t recommend it to a beginner in leftist theory, since it has a lot of heavy far-left vocabulary, and understanding that vocabulary is critical to understanding the book. With that said it’s definitely a must-read for any long time leftist of both libertarian and authoritarian variants.